Priyanka Venkat
For the 29th straight year, the United States Congress has failed to pass its annual appropriations. It has also failed to pass the usual band-aid of a continuing resolution, triggering the 22nd government shutdown since the modern appropriations process began in 1976.
This government shutdown showcases something deeper than a usual partisan divide. Despite having a president who prides himself on the “Art of the Deal,” our Congress employs divisional tactics and hateful rhetoric to obstruct the very idea of compromise.
Politicians today are rewarded less for passing legislation and more for provoking outrage via “win rhetoric.” But a focus on “winning” rather than governing stalls the legislative process and erodes trust in the institution. It is only by returning to persuasion that we can progress.
Legislative Catastrophe
On paper, the process of deciding appropriations is simple: Congress receives the presidential budget request, passes a budget resolution, and then the Appropriations Committee divides the spending into 12 appropriations bills before the start of the next fiscal year. Clear deadlines. Clear procedures.
Even if there is no agreement by the end of the fiscal year, as there often is not, Congress can vote on a continuing resolution, which temporarily extends funding while lawmakers continue to deliberate. Such measures are in place to prevent the scenario we are facing today: a government shutdown.
A government shutdown reflects a complete failure of congressmen to properly legislate. The previous shutdown lasted 35 days, furloughed hundreds of thousands of workers, and cost the economy an estimated $11 billion.
To avoid these negative consequences, Congress must reach some consensus, either in the form of a continuing resolution or by passing an actual appropriations package.
But in just the last 12 years, that process has failed five times. There is little reason to believe that it will not fail again.
To understand why, we must look at political motivations from a rational, not romantic, perspective.
Taking Out the Romance
We often frame politicians’ actions in a romantic sense: Representative A fought for a bill because they care about their constituents; Senator B stood firm because they were looking out for the people’s best interests. But if we wish to discuss why appropriations voting failed, we need to strip away that romance.
A legislator’s primary goal is to get re-elected and maintain their position of power. Congressmen may believe that they are the best for the job, but they must also maintain their position in the “room (or, in this case, the chamber) where it happens,” where decision-making takes place to enact policy. That is the package that politicians sell you.
Political power, then, is best thought of in terms of profit and loss. To “profit” as a politician is to remain in power; to lose means losing it.
A government shutdown is a gamble that risks that power. Public opinion sours the longer the shutdown occurs. Recent polling from NPR reflects this fact. With midterm elections fast approaching, one would expect both parties to avoid this outcome. And yet, the Senate failed to reach an agreement on Wednesday evening.
Why? Because the gains from “winning” the narrative are more profitable than coming to the table and passing even a continuing resolution.
Win Rhetoric Is Profitable
Rhetoric is defined as the art of persuasion. But instead of persuading their peers, congressmen use rhetoric to discredit their opponents. This phenomenon is a perfect representation of scholar Wayne Booth’s concept of “win rhetoric.” The goal of “win rhetoric” is not to reach a compromise or discover truth, but rather to defeat the opposition.
Antagonism over differing viewpoints is not a new facet of American politics. From Alexander Hamilton’s letter concerning John Adams to Preston Brooks’ caning of fellow United States Senator Charles Sumner, division has long been a facet of the legislative process.
But modern legislators prioritize wins not in the congressional chamber but in the echo chamber of the media.
Whether it’s the White House stating that “The Democrats have Shut Down the Government,” posts on X that use crude language towards a fellow elected official, or AI videos mocking congressional leaders, today’s politics frames disagreements as a battle and compromise as defeat.
Both parties use speech to toss the blame and claim one viewpoint as honest and justified, upholding moral integrity for their party while demonizing the opposition.
The result is bifurcation: if the opponent is a villain, then any attempt to find common ground is viewed as a betrayal of the cause. Thus, appropriations fail and shutdowns become inevitable as both sides refuse to yield
Persuasion Is Our Last Line of Defense
The antagonism does not distract from the fact that to keep the government running, politicians must do the hardest thing: sit down and compromise.
Compromise is unpopular, especially when it comes with accusations of bucking a party’s base, but it is necessary for government to function. This is larger than one shutdown. It is a deeper pattern of legislators refusing to legislate.
And when Congress fails to legislate, it leaves the country vulnerable to the overreach of other branches: the executive through issuing executive orders and the judicial through issuing rulings that carry the force of law. Each time the legislature cedes its role to the other two branches, it harms its credibility and the public’s trust in the institution.
Recovering from this requires a shift from vitriolic “win rhetoric” to persuasion between congressional members. Mutual persuasion requires civility and a willingness to communicate with those who differ with you. When parties frame their opposition as villains and compromise as betrayal, they stop communication. It is only through active persuasion between members of Congress that the legislature can recover and defend its place as the law-making body
Congress must set its priorities toward lawmaking rather than infighting, lest the next shutdown shatter its credibility entirely.